- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Meera Mishra v. Satish Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns the right to run a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil Mishrit, District Sitapur (U.P.), and is between two private individuals: the appellant and Respondent 1.
By order dated 14-02-2007, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit cancelled Respondent 1's fair price shop licence. Respondent 1 filed appeals before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow; by order dated 07-06-2007, the Commissioner dismissed the appeals.
Respondent 1 then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow. By judgment dated 12-07-2018 in Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. (2018 SCC OnLine All 2991), the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the SDM’s cancellation order (14-02-2007) and the Commissioner’s appellate order (07-06-2007), primarily on the basis that the Commissioner's order was not reasoned and did not discuss all issues.
The appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that the High Court’s order adversely affected his right to run the fair price shop. Leave was granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was right in allowing Respondent 1’s writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had set aside the Commissioner’s appellate order mainly because it was an unreasoned order and did not address all issues in dispute. Proceeding from that premise, the Supreme Court held that, once the High Court concluded the appellate order was legally unsustainable for want of reasons, it had two courses open: (i) decide the controversy on merits in the writ petition itself; or (ii) remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits by a reasoned order addressing all contentions.
According to the Supreme Court, the High Court did not effectively exercise either option, with the consequence that the merits were not examined properly either by the Commissioner in appeal or by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the parties were entitled to a merits determination by the appellate authority (Commissioner) and thereafter, if required, by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court preferred the remand course: to give effect to the High Court’s conclusion about the deficiency in reasons, while ensuring a merits adjudication by directing the Commissioner to decide the appeals afresh, after hearing the appellant, Respondent 1, and the concerned State department, and to pass a reasoned order on all issues, uninfluenced by observations of either the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED IN PART; REMANDED. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (U.P.) to decide the appeals afresh on merits.
The appeals bearing Nos. 38 of 2006-07 and 651 of 2006-2007 were restored to their respective numbers on the Commissioner’s file. The appellant and Respondent 1 were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 14-12-2018 and file a copy of the Supreme Court’s order, whereafter the Commissioner was to fix a suitable hearing date, hear all concerned (including the State department), and pass a reasoned order addressing all issues. The parties were permitted to file additional documents, and the remanded proceedings were to be completed within three months from the date of appearance. The opinion indicates no broader implications beyond ensuring a fresh, reasoned merits determination in the pending administrative appeals; it does not state that any new precedent was set.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.— Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12-7-2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine All 2991 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 herein and set aside the order dated 14-2-2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit cancelling the licence of Respondent 1 for fair price shop and order dated 7-6-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, rejecting his appeals.
2. The issue involved in this appeal is short as would be clear from the facts stated infra.
3. The dispute relates to a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil Mishrit, District Sitapur (U.P.). It is between the two private individuals, namely, the appellant and Respondent 1 herein. Both are asserting their respective rights to run the shop.
4. By order dated 14-2-2007, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit cancelled the licence of Respondent 1 in relation to the shop in question and, therefore, he filed appeals before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. By order dated 7-6-2007, the Commissioner dismissed the appeals, therefore, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow.
5. By the impugned order 2018 SCC OnLine All 2991, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 14-2-2007 of SDM, Mishrit and also the order dated 7-6-2007 of the Commissioner, Lucknow in Appeal No. 38 of 2006-2007 and Appeal No. 651 of 2006-2007. The High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner mainly on the ground that it was not a reasoned order. In other words, the High Court was of the view that the Commissioner did not discuss all the issues arising in the case.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court because according to the appellant, the impugned order 2018 SCC OnLine All 2991 has adversely affected his right to run the shop.
7. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was right in allowing Respondent 1's writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits after hearing the appellant, Respondent 1 and the State (Department concerned).
9. In our considered opinion, the High Court having held that the order of the Commissioner was not legally sustainable because it was an unreasoned order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide the controversy on merits in the writ petition itself and the other to remand the case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties in support of their case.
10. The High Court did not exercise any option. As a consequence, the merits of the case could not be examined either by the Commissioner in appeal properly or the High Court in writ petition. In our view, the parties were entitled for a decision of their case on merits by the appellate court (Commissioner) and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. In this case, neither the Commissioner could record any finding on the merits and nor the High Court. It is for this reason, we are inclined to prefer the second option and while giving effect to the impugned order, remand the case (appeal) to the Commissioner to enable him to examine the merits of the case in accordance with law.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The case is remanded to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (U.P.) for deciding the appeals afresh on merits.
12. The appeals bearing Nos. 38 of 2006-07 and 651 of 2006-2007 are accordingly restored to their respective numbers on the file of the Commissioner for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.
13. The appellant and Respondent 1 both will appear before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 14-12-2018 and file a copy of this order. The Commissioner will then fix any suitable date for hearing the appeals and on that day will hear the appellant, Respondent 1 and the Department concerned of the State, and after hearing all the parties, will pass a reasoned order on all the issues arising in this case relating to fair price shop in question uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court and this Court.
14. The parties are permitted to file additional documents, if any, in support of their case before the Commissioner in appeals. Let the proceedings be over within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Alert